In the matter of Manatiy

[2022] NSWSC 895

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Application of the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police; In the matter of Manatiy [2022] NSWSC 895

Hearing dates:

17 June 2022

Date of orders:

17 June 2022

Decision date:

17 June 2022

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Hamill J

Decision:

The Court makes orders in accordance with the short minutes of order filed on 17 June 2022 and lists the matter for directions hearing before the registrar on 30 June 2022.

Catchwords:

CIVIL – confiscation of proceeds of crime – restraining orders pursuant to Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act – orders of a foreign court – statutory requirements satisfied – no question of principle

Legislation Cited:

Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 (Cth), ss 3, 33A, 34, 34A

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 6.15

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (Plaintiff)
Sabah Manatiy (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
J Tully (Plaintiff)

Solicitors:
Australian Federal Police (Plaintiff)

File Number(s):

2022/175161

ex tempore Judgment (revised)

1. The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (“the Commissioner”) commences proceedings by way of summons against the defendant, Sabah Manatiy, and seeks a number of orders in the nature of restraining orders over certain nominated property.

2. The circumstances in fact arise overseas, and the orders sought today are for registration of orders made by the Local Court in Frankfurt by a nominated Judge, Dr Bayer. The background to those orders is set out in the orders of the foreign court, which are annexed to an affidavit of Simon Charles Moore. But, as a result of the terms of s 33A of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 (Cth), it is unnecessary to look more closely into the underlying factual circumstances because the intention of the Parliament is that the validity of such orders not be examined.

3. The Act requires certain formal matters to be established before an order registering such foreign orders is made, and in particular I am satisfied that the Commissioner is an appropriate authority to make the application and that this Court clearly enough is the appropriate court to make the orders. The provisions of ss 33A, 34 and 34A of the Act are the relevant provisions, as are a number of the definitions in s 3 and in particular the definition of “foreign restraining order”.

4. The orders made by the Frankfurt Local Court clearly fall within those orders, and the evidence supports the proposition that the foreign country has requested the Attorney-General to make arrangements for the enforcement of the foreign restraining order. And once those things are established, the matter is no longer at the discretion of the Court, but rather, the Court is required to register the foreign order.

5. I have considered the provisions requiring notice in s 34A(2) of the Act, requiring a “proceeds of crime authority” to give notice to people that may have an interest in the property. That will include at least the defendant and possibly the alleged victim of his allegedly reprehensible conduct in Europe. I am satisfied, pursuant to subsection (3), that it is appropriate to hear the matter without giving notice, on the basis that there is a risk that these orders would be defeated or thwarted if the defendant, in particular, was on notice.

6. I am satisfied that there is nothing to suggest it would not be in the interests of justice to make the orders.

7. Accordingly, I will make the orders in prayers one, two and three of the summons. The matter is listed for a directions hearing on 30 June 2022 before the registrar for, if necessary, a referral to the duty judge.

**********

Decision last updated: 04 August 2022